DOCSLIB.ORG

Jason D. Sinnett V. State of Indiana

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jason D. Sinnett V. State of Indiana MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Jason D. Sinnett Theodore E. Rokita Branchville, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Catherine E. Brizzi Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Jason D. Sinnett, March 26, 2021 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-1406 v. Appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Jonathan M. Appellee-Plaintiff. Brown, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 29D02-1808-F5-5640 Mathias, Judge. [1] Jason D. Sinnett appeals the Hamilton Superior Court’s denial of his motion to correct erroneous sentence. Sinnett argues that the trial court imposed an Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1406 | March 26, 2021 Page 1 of 8 impermissible double enhancement when it sentenced him for both Level 5 felony auto theft—enhanced to a Level 5 because he had a prior unrelated felony auto theft conviction—and for being a habitual offender. [2] Concluding that the trial court did not err when it sentenced Sinnett, we affirm. Facts and Procedural History [3] In August 2018, Sinnett was charged with Level 6 felony auto theft and Level 5 felony auto theft because Sinnett had a prior unrelated auto theft conviction. Specifically, the State alleged Sinnett was convicted of auto theft in 2013 under cause number 29C01-1307-FC-5883. The State also alleged Sinnett was a habitual offender. In support of that allegation, the State listed Sinnett’s 2009 Class C felony forgery conviction (cause number 49G093-0907-FC-60848) and his 2007 Class C felony auto theft conviction (cause number 49G03-0711-FC- 234528). [4] On November 30, 2018, Sinnett and the State entered into a plea agreement that provided Sinnett would plead guilty to Level 5 felony auto theft and to being a habitual offender.1 The plea agreement provided that Sinnett would serve eight years total: four years for the auto theft conviction with a four-year enhancement for the habitual-offender adjudication. Sinnett and the State agreed that he would serve four years executed in the Department of Correction 1 In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss the Level 6 felony auto theft charge, and four theft counts: two Class A misdemeanors and two Level 6 felonies. The Level 6 felony theft charges were enhancements to the Class A misdemeanor charges due to a prior felony theft conviction. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1406 | March 26, 2021 Page 2 of 8 (“DOC”) and two years on electronic home monitoring as a direct commitment to Hamilton County Community Corrections, if that placement was approved. If Sinnett was not approved for community corrections, he would serve six years in DOC. The remaining two years were suspended. The trial court approved the plea agreement on December 3, 2018, and sentenced Sinnett accordingly. [5] On January 31, 2020, Sinnett pro se filed a motion to correct erroneous sentence. Sinnett claimed that he was not “eligible for the Habitual Criminal enhancement” because “[t]he original charge of auto theft had been enhanced previously under the progressive-penalty statute.”2 Appellant’s App. p. 33. Sinnett also asserted that the General Assembly has not authorized the State to “first enhance a charge due to a prior conviction, then enhance it once again by filing the Habitual Offender” allegation. Id. at 35. In response, the State argued that “felonies enhanced by a prior felony can be enhanced by the [] habitual offender if the enhancing prior [felony] is not used again in the habitual determination.” Id. at 38. The State observed that the felony used to support the Level 5 auto theft charge was not one of the felonies listed to support the habitual-offender allegation. 2 Sinnett also argued that when the State filed the Level 5 felony auto theft charge, it should have moved to dismiss the Level 6 auto theft charge. The Level 6 charge was eventually dismissed under the plea agreement, and Sinnett cannot establish any error in this regard. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1406 | March 26, 2021 Page 3 of 8 [6] The trial court denied Sinnett’s motion February 7, 2020, without holding a hearing. Sinnett also filed a Trial Rule 60(B) motion, which the trial court concluded was duplicative of the motion to correct erroneous sentence. Therefore, the court denied the 60(B) motion on March 1, 2020. Sinnett attempted to file pro se a notice of appeal on March 9, 2020, but the trial court rejected his filing. Id. at 29. On August 11, 2020, Sinnett was granted permission to file a belated appeal. Id. Discussion and Decision [7] Sinnett argues that the “State of Indiana has no authority to further enhance an offense that has already been enhanced by a progressive penalty statute with the general habitual offender statute.” Appellant’s Br. at 8. Initially, we observe that It has long been established that double enhancements are not permissible unless there is explicit legislative direction authorizing them. But double enhancements are permissible when there is explicit legislative direction authorizing them. Whether a particular double enhancement is permissible, therefore, is a matter of statutory interpretation. Dye v. State, 972 N.E.2d 853, 856–57 (Ind. 2012) (cleaned up), aff’d on reh’g, 984 N.E.2d 625 (Ind. 2013). Sinnett relies on Dye to support his argument that he was subject to an impermissible double enhancement. He misreads that decision. [8] Dye was convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (“SVF”) and found to be a habitual offender. On appeal, Dye claimed that Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1406 | March 26, 2021 Page 4 of 8 “tacking the habitual-offender enhancement on to the sentence for unlawful possession of a firearm by an SVF constitute[d] an impermissible double enhancement.” Id. at 856. The Dye court held that “a double enhancement is improper where the underlying conviction is for unlawful possession of a firearm by an SVF.” Id. at 858 (citing Mills v. State, 868 N.E.2d 446, 452 (Ind. 2007)). On rehearing, the court clarified that an SVF conviction enhanced by a habitual-offender adjudication is impermissible only when the same underlying offense, or an underlying offense within the res gestae of another underlying offense, is used to establish both the SVF status and the habitual-offender status. Dye v. State, 984 N.E.2d 625, 630 Ind. 2013). The prior conviction used to support Dye’s SVF charge and one of the two prior convictions used to support the habitual-offender allegation arose from the same criminal incident. Id. at 629–30. Therefore, the court concluded that “the State is not [] permitted to support Dye’s habitual offender finding with a conviction that arose out of the same res gestae that was the source of the conviction used to prove Dye was a serious violent felon.” Id. at 630. [9] Applying Dye, our court has held it is permissible for a defendant to be sentenced as both an SVF and a habitual offender in the same proceeding when the underlying felonies supporting those allegations are not related to each other. See e.g., Shorter v. State, 144 N.E.3d 829, 842 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied; Shepherd v. State, 985 N.E.2d 362, 363–64 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013); see also Tuell v. State, 118 N.E.3d 33, 37 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (recognizing “many Indiana decisions have held that there is no double enhancement unless more Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1406 | March 26, 2021 Page 5 of 8 than one of the statutes that authorize enhancements for repeat offenders are applied to the same felony or the same proof of an uninterrupted transaction”) (cleaned up). [10] As is relevant here, the habitual-offender statute authorizes a sentencing enhancement of between two and six years when the enhancement is attached to a Level 5 felony conviction. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-8(i)(2). Sinnett was convicted of Level 5 felony auto theft; therefore, to establish that Sinnet was also a habitual offender, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the person has been convicted of two (2) prior unrelated felonies; (2) at least one (1) of the prior unrelated felonies is not a Level 6 felony or a Class D felony; and (3) if the person is alleged to have committed a prior unrelated: (A) Level 5 felony; (B) Level 6 felony; (C) Class C felony; or (D) Class D felony; not more than ten (10) years have elapsed between the time the person was released from imprisonment, probation, or parole (whichever is latest) for at least one (1) of the two (2) prior unrelated felonies and the time the person committed the current offense. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1406 | March 26, 2021 Page 6 of 8 I.C. § 35-50-2-8 (c).3 [11] The State alleged that Sinnett was a habitual offender based on his convictions for Class C felony forgery in 2009 and Class C felony auto theft in 2007. Sinnett pleaded guilty to being a habitual offender and he does not claim that his prior convictions do not satisfy the requirements of Indiana Code section 35-50-2- 8(c).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Habitually Offending the Constitution: the Cruel and Unusual Consequences of Habitual Offender Laws and Mandatory Minimums
    \\jciprod01\productn\G\GMC\28-1\GMC102.txt unknown Seq: 1 22-NOV-17 13:27 HABITUALLY OFFENDING THE CONSTITUTION: THE CRUEL AND UNUSUAL CONSEQUENCES OF HABITUAL OFFENDER LAWS AND MANDATORY MINIMUMS Abigail A. McNelis* INTRODUCTION Lee Carroll Brooker will die before seeing another day of free- dom.1 At the age of seventy-six years old, the disabled veteran cur- rently sits in prison, waiting out the remainder of his days, serving a mandatory life sentence for a non-violent drug charge.2 In 2011, Brooker received a life sentence for a marijuana conviction.3 As a veteran suffering from chronic pain, Brooker grew marijuana plants behind his son’s home.4 Brooker intended the marijuana only for per- sonal use.5 During an unrelated home search, police recovered less than three pounds of marijuana plants, which included unusable pieces such as stalks and vines.6 On July 20, 2011, Investigator Ronald Hall of the Dothan Police Department obtained written consent from Brooker’s son, Darren, to search the family home.7 Darren consented to the search in connec- tion with an investigation into stolen bicycles.8 While searching the house, investigators discovered a smaller growing operation in an upstairs bedroom.9 Investigators decided to search outside the prem- ises, and Brooker confirmed the presence of additional plants behind the home.10 The multiple investigators on the scene discovered sev- * Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, J.D. expected, 2018. 1 See Ex parte Brooker, 192 So. 3d 1 (Ala. 2015). 2 Editorial, Outrageous Sentences for Marijuana, N.Y.
    [Show full text]
  • Dearborn-Local-Rules.Pdf
    CRIMINAL RULES LR15-CR-1 BAIL In all criminal matters coming within the jurisdiction of the Dearborn Circuit Court, Dearborn County Superior Court No. 1, and/or Dearborn Superior Court II, in which an arrest has been made and misdemeanor, felony or murder charges are pending, the following bond schedule shall apply unless otherwise ordered by the Court. A. A PERSON CHARGED WITH ANY OF THE FOLLOWING CRIMINAL OFFENSES IS NOT ELIGIBLE TO POST BAIL WITHOUT PERSONALLY APPEARING BEFORE A JUDGE AT AN INITIAL HEARING AND THE BOND SCHEDULE DOES NOT APPLY 1. Any person charged with Murder; 2. Any person charged with any Class A, B, or C Felony or Level 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 Felony; 3. Any person charged with a crime involving Domestic Violence which shall include the felony or misdemeanor offenses of Domestic Battery, Strangulation, Battery on a Child, Intimidation, Confinement, Invasion of Privacy or Stalking 4. Any person arrested for Resisting Law Enforcement, Battery on a Police Officer, or Escape from Home Detention Program; 5. Any person arrested for Non-Support of a Dependent Child; 6. Any person charged with Habitual Offender or is shown to have two (2) or more prior felony convictions; 7. Any person currently on probation or parole; 8. Any person currently on Southeast Regional Community Corrections Road Crew, Work Release, or In Home Incarceration; 9. Any person currently on release on bond for a Level 1,2,3,4,5 or 6; or A, B, C, or D Felony offense; 10. Any person charged with Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated who has two (2) or more prior Operating a Vehicle While Intoxicated convictions; 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Habitual Offender's Life Sentence Without Parole Is Disproportionate Elizabeth M
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 74 Article 11 Issue 4 Fall Fall 1983 Eight Amendment--Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Habitual Offender's Life Sentence without Parole is Disproportionate Elizabeth M. Mills Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Elizabeth M. Mills, Eight Amendment--Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Habitual Offender's Life Sentence without Parole is Disproportionate, 74 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1372 (1983) This Supreme Court Review is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/83/7404-1372 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAw & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 74, No. 4 Copyright C 1983 by Northwestern University School of Law Printedin US.A. EIGHTH AMENDMENT--CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT: HABITUAL OFFENDER'S LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT PAROLE IS DISPROPORTIONATE Solem v. Helm, 103 S. Ct. 3001 (1983). I. INTRODUCTION In Solem v. Helm,' the Supreme Court, for the first time, held a sen- tence of imprisonment to be cruel and unusual because it was dispropor- tionate to the crime committed. The Court overturned a life sentence without parole imposed under a recidivist statute on a defendant who had been convicted of seven relatively minor felonies. The Court held that the sentence was disproportionate and thus violated the eighth 2 amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
    [Show full text]
  • Habitual Offender Laws: a Reconsideration
    Buffalo Law Review Volume 21 Number 1 Article 5 10-1-1971 Habitual Offender Laws: A Reconsideration Daniel Katkin University at Buffalo Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Daniel Katkin, Habitual Offender Laws: A Reconsideration, 21 Buff. L. Rev. 99 (1971). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol21/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HABITUAL OFFENDER LAWS: A RECONSIDERATION DANIEL KATKIN* I. HISTORY AND PURPOSE ecidivism is a comparatively new social problem. Prior to the movement for penal reform in England (1750-1833) even the most trifling offenses were punishable either by hanging or by imprisonment which was considered to be only a slightly more protracted death.' Thus, while there were unquestionably hab- itual criminals, there were few whose careers were not ended by a first conviction. By the end of the nineteenth century this unexpected conse- quence of reform-the presence of the habitual criminal-was clearly recognized and attention was focused on the resultant issues of social protection and deterrence.2 The concept of pre- ventive detention for repeated offenders was initially suggested in the Gladstone Committee Report of 1895,3 which is generally regarded as a landmark in the history of progressive penology.4 While the Committee urged the acceptance of rehabilitation as a goal of the penal system,5 it was skeptical about the capacity for reformation of recidivist offenders: There is evidently a large class of habitual criminals-who live by robbery and thieving and petty larceny-who run the risk of comparatively short sentences with comparative indifference.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Strikes and You're Out: the Implementation and Impart of Strike Laws
    The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Three Strikes and You’re Out: The Implementation and Impart of Strike Laws Author(s): James Austin Ph.D. ; John Clark ; Patricia Hardyman Ph.D. ; D. Alan Henry Document No.: 181297 Date Received: March 6, 2000 Award Number: 96-CE-VX-0009 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. “THREE STRIKES AND YOU’RE OUT” THE IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACT OF STRIKE LAWS Submitted by James Austin, Ph.D. John Clark Patricia Hardyman, Ph.D. D. Alan Henry -,, . ...’, ... b ;. .., 1. - ..., This project was supported by Grant No. 96-CE-VX-0009awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Excessive Prison Sentences, Punishment Goals, and the Eighth Amendment: "Proportionality" Relative to What? Richard S
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 2005 Excessive Prison Sentences, Punishment Goals, and the Eighth Amendment: "Proportionality" Relative to What? Richard S. Frase Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Frase, Richard S., "Excessive Prison Sentences, Punishment Goals, and the Eighth Amendment: "Proportionality" Relative to What?" (2005). Minnesota Law Review. 668. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/668 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Article Excessive Prison Sentences, Punishment Goals, and the Eighth Amendment: "Proportionality"Relative to What? By Richard S. Fraset Introduction .............................................................................. 572 I. A Short History of Prison-Duration Proportionality in the Suprem e Court ..................................................... 576 A . R um m el v. Estelle .................................................... 577 B . H utto v. Davis .......................................................... 578 C . Solem v. H elm .......................................................... 579 D. Harmelin v. Michigan .............................................. 581 E. Ewing v. California.................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sex Offenses and the Statutory Consequences
    Sex Offenses and the Statutory Consequences March 2014 Terri S. Morrison, First Assistant Legal Counsel, Colorado Judicial Department This document was prepared by Terri Morrison, First Assistant Legal Counsel for the Colorado Judicial Department and it is intended to demonstrate the numerous combinations that are created by the consequences of a plea or finding of guilty to each sex offense. It is not intended to be legal advice or exhaustive of all issues pertaining to sex offenders in Colorado. The following categories are used to demonstrate the combinations: Sex Offender Registration Requirements; Lifetime/Indeterminate sentences to DOC or Probation—For offenses occurring on or after November 1, 1998; Sex Offender Intensive Supervision Probation (SOISP) as part of a Probation sentence; and Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) assessment and findings. The chart does not cover all sentencing outcomes that may be controlled by factors such as: A defendant’s non-eligibility for probation based on prior criminal offense (§18-1.3-201); Effects of defendant’s criminal history on sentencing; Crimes of Violence (COV) (unless the offense cross-references to the COV statute); Charges of Habitual Offender or Habitual Sex Offender against Children NOTE: All SOISP eligible offenders are not subject to lifetime/indeterminate but all persons who are subject to a lifetime/indeterminate sentence are subject to SOISP if sentenced to probation. The chart and the summary after have been modified to reflect changes made by: SB 06-22, adding attempts,
    [Show full text]
  • Recidivism and the Eighth Amendment--Is the Habitual Offender Protected Against Excessive Punishment Cameron Jay Rains
    Notre Dame Law Review Volume 55 | Issue 2 Article 8 12-1-1979 Recidivism and the Eighth Amendment--Is the Habitual Offender Protected against Excessive Punishment Cameron Jay Rains Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Cameron J. Rains, Recidivism and the Eighth Amendment--Is the Habitual Offender Protected against Excessive Punishment, 55 Notre Dame L. Rev. 305 (1979). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndlr/vol55/iss2/8 This Commentary is brought to you for free and open access by NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Law Review by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recidivism and the Eighth Amendment-Is the Habitual Offender Protected Against Excessive Punishment? Rummel v. Estelle* I. Introduction In its 190-year history of construing the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the eighth amendment, the Supreme Court has rarely focused on ex- cessively long sentences. Consequently, the circuits are in conflict as to the proper standard of review in assessing eighth amendment challenges.1 In par- ticular, disagreement exists on whether parole probability should be considered when analyzing the severity of a sentence. Additionally, with respect to recidivist statutes, 2 there is disagreement as to how germane the nature of the individual underlying offenses is when judging the constitutionality of the penalty imposed. In Rummel v. Estelle,3 the Fifth Circuit faced the issue whether Texas' recidivist statute "as applied" to William Rummel was violative of the eighth amendment's prohibition against excessive punishments.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law -- Pardons -- Habitual Offender Laws
    University of Miami Law Review Volume 11 Number 1 Miami Law Quarterly Article 15 10-1-1956 Criminal Law -- Pardons -- Habitual Offender Laws Iva W. Kay Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr Recommended Citation Iva W. Kay Jr., Criminal Law -- Pardons -- Habitual Offender Laws, 11 U. Miami L. Rev. 147 (1956) Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol11/iss1/15 This Case Noted is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Miami Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CASENOTES questionable, even in light of this decision, whether Florida would apply the felony-murder doctrine where the deceased is a co-felon. Prior to the instant case, the only cases holding the doctrine applicable to the death of a co-felon, were those in which a co-felon either accidently caused his own death 17 or was unintentionally killed by another felon.", The principal case presents a far-reaching application of the felony murder doctrine, for it is, as far as can be ascertained, the first time the doctrine has been applied where the victim of a felony justifiably kills a co-felon. The majority based its decision on the concept that the death of the co-felon was the natural consequence of the felonious act. But, how can one be guilty of murder for a killing that was unquestionably a justi- fiable homicide? Here, the deceased was a perpetrator of the robbery whose death was certainly not in furtherance of the crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Matter of Nolan
    Interim Decision #3043 MATTER OF NOLAN In. Deportation Proceedings A-35298972 Decided by Board January 26, 1988 (1) The pardon issued automatically to the respondent as a first felony offender pur- suant to Article 4, section 5(EX1) of the Constitution of the State of Louisiana of 1974 upon completion of his sentence does not satisfy the requirements of section 241(bXl) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1251(bXl) (1982), and therefore does not excuse deportability under section 241(aX4) of the Act, because the pardon is neither full nor unconditional and because it was not issued by the Governor or an otherwise constitutionally-recognized executive body of Louisiana. (2) The availability or unavailability of a pardon under state or federal law, or the existence or nonexistence` of a qualifying pardoning authority, is not determina- tive of whether an offense constitutes a "crime" within the ambit of section 241(aX4) of the Act. Matter of Cevallos, 12 I&N Dec. 750 (BIA 1968), overruled. CHARGE: Order: Act of 1952—Sec. 241(aX4) [8 U.S.C. §1251(aX0—Crime involving moral turpitude ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT: ON BEHALF OF SERVICE: Nelson Smith, Esquire George W. Katz 725 First City National Bank Building General Attorney El Paso, Texas 79901 BY: Milhollan, Chairman; Dunne, Morris, Vacca, and Heilman, Board Members This case is before its on motion of the respondent to reopen in order to terminate the proceedings based on the existence of new evidence not available at the time of the original hearing. The motion will be denied.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Strikes the Wrong Way to Justice a Report on Massachusetts' Proposed Habitual O!Ender Legislation
    Charles Institute for Hamilton Houston Race & Justice H A R V A R D L A W S C H O O L Three Strikes The Wrong Way to Justice A Report on Massachusetts' Proposed Habitual O!ender Legislation 1 2 Charles Institute for Hamilton Houston Race & Justice H A R V A R D L A W S C H O O L Three Strikes The Wrong Way to Justice A Report on Massachusetts' Proposed Habitual O!ender Legislation A Policy Report of the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice: Harvard Law School Released June 26, 2012 This report provides critical information to the public and to Massachusetts state legisla- tors about the likely long-term impact of the proposed changes to Massachusetts’ Habitual O!ender Law (S 2080 AND H 3818). These changes are currently being debated in the Legislature’s Conference Committee. At a time when many states are moving to repeal or amend their “three strikes” laws in order to take a more balanced approach to public safety, Massachusetts has inexplicably chosen to move in the “wrong direction.” The report o!ers a detailed analysis of the most problematic provisions of the bills that are almost certain to cost taxpayers far more than originally estimated, increase the likelihood of unnecessarily lengthy prison sentences for low-level o!enders, further burden an already severely overcrowded prison system—put- ting employees and prisoners at risk—and divert precious state resources away from edu- cation, basic services, infrastructure improvement, and job creation. The legislation will almost certainly further exacerbate the stark racial disparities that characterize the state’s prison population.
    [Show full text]
  • (1) the Person Has Been Convicted of Two (2) Prior Unrelated Felonies; (2
    Text 2014_Text.qxd 7/21/2014 3:22 PM Page 351 CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE 351 (1) the person has been convicted of two (2) the offense for which the state seeks to (2) prior unrelated felonies; have the person sentenced as a habitual (2) at least one (1) of the prior unrelated offender was committed after commission felonies is not a Level 6 felony or a Class of and sentencing for the second prior D felony; and unrelated felony conviction. (3) if the person is alleged to have com- (3) for a conviction requiring proof of mitted a prior unrelated: three (3) prior unrelated felonies, the third (A) Level 5 felony; prior unrelated felony conviction was com- (B) Level 6 felony; mitted after commission of and sentencing (C) Class C felony; or for the second prior unrelated felony con- (D) Class D felony; viction. not more than ten (10) years have elapsed between (g) A conviction does not count for purposes the time the person was released from imprison- of this section as a prior unrelated felony convic- ment, probation, or parole (whichever is latest) and tion if: the time the person committed the current offense. (1) the conviction has been set aside; or (d) A person convicted of a Level 6 felony is (2) the conviction is one for which the a habitual offender if the state proves beyond a rea- person has been pardoned. sonable doubt that: (h) If the person was convicted of the felony (1) the person has been convicted of three in a jury trial, the jury shall reconvene for the (3) prior unrelated felonies; and sentencing hearing.
    [Show full text]